J A N E T I L I T Y

But I will, anyway. On May 8th, Ordinary Magic, by Caitlen Rubino-Bradway will be released. From Amazon’s book description: “In Abby’s world, magic isn’t anything special: it’s a part of everyday life. So when Abby learns that she has zero magical abilities, she’s branded an “Ord”—ordinary, bad luck, and quite possibly a danger to society. The outlook for kids like Abby isn’t bright. Many are cast out by their families, while others are sold to treasure hunters (ordinary kids are impervious to spells and enchantments). Luckily for Abby, her family enrolls her in a school that teaches ordinary kids how to get around in a magical world. But with treasure-hunting kidnappers and carnivorous goblins lurking around every corner, Abby’s biggest problem may not be learning how to be ordinary—it’s whether or not she’s going to survive the school year!”

And what is the book blogiverse saying?

“I definitely recommend this must read book for those who love magical adventures and stories with a twist.”  Ms. Book Queen

“… the author has crafted an allegory that successfully lampoons mindless prejudices...” Kirkus

“…a very frank look at bigotry for a middle grade level…Ordinary Magic was a fun, engaging read.”  The Book Evangelist

“This is a fantastic book and I was totally enchanted by it.”  Books Your Kids Will Love

“Abby, as a truly “normal” heroine is easy to identify with. Unfinished business suggests a sequel in store.” Publishers Weekly

“Caitlen weaves the issue of Ord inequality to be parallels of racism, class systems and ableism.”   Write the Word

“Not only does [Ordinary Magic] twist many of the genre’s convents, but it is filled with well-developed characters and relationships.”  Page in Training

I love, love, love how Caitlen Rubino handled her story. Harry Potter had a very magical sense in the story. Ordinary Magic does to, but also attacks issues, such as prejudice…” Hippies, Beauty and Books, Oh My!

“I LOVE THIS BOOK!”  Yearning To Read

[Ordinary Magic] is just plain fun to read in every way, and that includes fabulous magical action scenes, intense excitement – and simple charm, which it has in spades…This is my very favorite MG fantasy discovery in a very long time.” Stephanie Burgis, Author

In glancing back at January’s focus on a few screen renderings of Sherlock Holmes adventures, I see that half of my subjects – The Blue Carbuncle and The Hound of the Baskervilles – addressed films adapted from Conan Doyle stories, and half – Murder By Decree and A Case of Evil – were original material incorporating the character of Sherlock Holmes.

Rathbone

Sherlock Holmes, as the subject of adaptations – pastiches, sequels, mash-ups, modernizations and assorted character cadging – has only one rival: Jane Austen, generally; Pride and Prejudice, particularly and Mr. Darcy, specifically. If Jane Austen derivative works outnumber Conan Doyle’s, it is only because some of Doyle’s property is still protected by copyright (in the US) and Austen’s work and characters are in the public domain. To an eager aspirant, “public domain” translates as “open season”; or, as Conan Doyle rather snappishly replied to William Gillette, when Gillette wanted to know if he might marry off Holmes in a stage adaptation, “You may marry him or murder him or do whatever you like with him.”

Williamson

Yet, given license to marry or murder or convert to vampires or transport to the twenty-first century, the nagging consideration is not, “What can we do?”, but “What should we do?” What license or should you take with a work or a character that was not of your own invention?

Cushing, as Holmes

In Edgar W. Smith’s cogent essay on the character of Sherlock Holmes- “The Implicit Holmes” – he asks, “What is it that we love in Sherlock Holmes?” and I think it’s that “what is it we love” that ought to define the limits of license. After all, haven’t Conan Doyle and Jane Austen – or, more specifically, Sherlock Holmes and Mr. Darcy – been singled out because they represent qualities that have a timeless appeal? And if that is true, should not special care be taken to retain those fundamental qualities even when the superficial trappings change?

Cushing, as Darcy

The first part of Smith’s essay defends the requisite of keeping Holmes in his era and place. Some may disagree; however, there was a social canon that shaped Holmes’s character (and Darcy’s) that risks appearing quaint, or alien or artificial when he is taken out of his time. Holmes and Darcy were gentlemen when “gentleman” described caste as well as conduct; when they are transplanted, their conduct may become irrelevant in the context of a modern setting, or is coarsened to adapt to a modern age. Even the Canon suggests this. In its most cringeworthy tale – The Adventure of the Three Gables – Holmes’s language and conduct are frequently appalling. So much so, that some scholars reject Conan Doyle’s authorship. The truth is more to the point – more to Smith’s point: The Three Gables was published in the late 1920s, when detective fiction inclined toward snappy dialogue and conditional morality. (Holmes could subscribe to conditional justice, but never conditional morality). In succumbing to the influence of a more modern style, Doyle’s Three Gables Sherlock is barely recognizable as the gentleman who was once prepared to commit an act that is “morally justifiable though technically criminal” because “a gentleman should not lay much stress upon [personal risk] when a lady is in most desperate need of his help”. Likewise, Darcy’s revulsion at the prospect of acquiring relations whose “condition in life is so decidedly beneath my own”, loses its credibility if he is taken out of his era, as does the extent of his chivalry when he lowers himself to “meet, to frequently meet, reason with, persuade and finally bribe” Wickham.

D'Arcy, as Holmes

Cumberbatch, as Holmes

For both characters, a re-imagining that cannot retain the fundamental blend of “Galahad and Socrates” (Smith’s phrase) risks losing what we love, however entertaining the substitute may be.

Putting Sherlock Holmes on the track of Jack the Ripper is unquestionably tempting; the Ripper murders occurred at a time when Holmes would have been an ambitious thirtysomething detective and quite receptive to a complex and challenging case. There has never been a positive identification of the Ripper, nor any explanation (other than the obvious: he died, emigrated, was incapacitated or imprisoned) for the abrupt termination of the killings. Drawing Holmes into such an intriguing, open-ended puzzle has invited the talents of authors Ellery Queen, Michael Dibdin,  Edward Hanna, Carole Nelson Douglas and Lyndsay Faye.

 Holmes vs the Ripper has been the subject of a couple films as well, and one that is both the most and least satisfying is the 1979 film Murder By Decree. Here, the plot exploits one of the more colorful theories: that the murdered women had knowledge of an illegitimate child who was the result of an affair (or unofficial marriage) between the Duke of Clarence, second in line to the throne, and the lowborn Annie Crook. Defenders of the heir confine Crook to an asylum and pressure her to reveal the child’s whereabouts while they systematically kill off the prostitutes who were privy to the liaison.

The most laudable aspect of the film – in fact the only laudable one – is in the casting. Christopher Plummer (Holmes) and James Mason (Watson) are on the somewhat mature side, but there is a wonderful compatibility that is not often (read: “almost never”) depicted in translations of the Canon. Mason does make one appreciate that Watson may be the harder role to pull off; with fewer props on which to string a performance – no pipe, no violin, no disguise, no displays of agility or temperament – an accomplished actor has to flesh out the dimensions of character without sinking into caricature. The fact that Mason can express his indignation at Holmes’s “squashing a fellow’s pea” without lapsing into the blustering inanity that was the default mode of other actors (read: “Nigel Bruce”) is commendation enough. Plummer is equally engaging – without ever lapsing into uncharacteristic sentimentality, his performance hints at the “great heart as well as of a great brain”: commanding, compassionate, humorous and completely authentic, even when saddled with the deerstalker and Inverness.

Mason, Finlay (as Lestrade) and Plummer

There is an impressive supporting cast as well: Donald Sutherland, David Hemmings, John Gielgud, Anthony Quayle, Frank Finlay and particularly Susan Clark as Mary Kelly, and Genevieve Bujold as Annie Crook; their scenes with Plummer are the most poignant moments of the film. (As an interesting side note, Finlay, who portrays Lestrade here, also portrayed Lestrade in another Holmes vs the Ripper film, the 1965, A Study in Terror; Quayle, who here is Sir Charles Warren was Doctor Murray in the ’65 film).

Plummer with Clark (as Mary Kelly)

Plummer with Bujold (as Annie Crook)

As for the everything else: watching this again (I had seen it years ago), I realized what is unsatisfying about it. For a film that offers an intriguing theory about the Ripper that brings together a royal conspiracy and a vicious serial killer with literature’s most famous detective, the film is rather suspenseless. Perhaps it is the jarring score that forecasts every crime so relentlessly that the crime itself becomes almost anticlimactic. Perhaps it is the reticence with which the crimes are rendered – one can be shocking without being explicit. And, perhaps, it is the awkward angling of the exterior shots to camouflage the use of sound stages. At any rate, it remains just good enough to make a viewer wish it had been better.

Which Austen character would have enjoyed Murder By Decree? Colonel Brandon would certainly have admired Holmes for risking his life and reputation in a just cause; Frank Churchill would have understood keeping secrets out of self-preservation, and Mary Bennet may have drawn a useful lesson from the prostitutes’ conspiracy: that one false step can involve a woman in endless ruin.

And three degrees of Austen: Particularly easy here, since Donald Sutherland, who plays the psychic Robert Lees, was Mr. Bennet in the 2005 Pride and Prejudice.

While I lamented, in my remarks about A Christmas Story, that the modern Christmas films are either tailored to a star’s comic persona, or issues-oriented dramas that happen to take place in December, there had been a time when every Christmas season offered one or two very good holiday-themed television films. They were modest, by feature film standards, but infinitely superior to the Yule season tide of forgettable “All-I-want-for-Christmas-is-a-boyfriend”–like fare. Many of these productions were literary adaptations; they aired periodically and then were dropped from the holiday calendar. A few are available on DVD and all of them are worth hunting down or pestering Netflix to acquire.

Buddy and Sook

A Christmas Memory was one of the hour-long installments in the unsuccessful experiment, Studio 67, to develop an anthology of dramas, documentary and variety programming. First airing in December, 1966, it was adapted from Truman Capote’s autobiographical, Depression-era tale of the final Christmas that seven-year-old Buddy (Capote) spends with his elderly aunts. His aunt “Sook”, naïve and open-hearted is his best friend, and together they contrive to keep up their small traditions despite their poverty and the discouragement of their other relations. In a brilliant stroke, the decision was made to have Capote narrate and his languid, almost childlike recital sets the perfect nostalgic tone. Geraldine Page, as Sook, won Emmys for both A Christmas Memory and its sequel, The Thanksgiving Visitor. 

Addie wants a Christmas tree

The House Without a Christmas Treewas the first of a quartet of films based on children’s author Gail Rock’s “Addie Mills” series. First airing in the early 70s, it was a Christmas staple throughout the decade. The tale, set in mid-1940s Nebraska, is focused on spirited, 10-year-old Addie Mills and her embittered father who has not allowed a Christmas tree in the house since his wife’s death. When Addie wins a Christmas tree in a school contest, it brings about a confrontation and finally, reconciliation. Recorded on videotape, which was relatively new and raw in the 70s, but the performances of Jason Robards, Mildred Natwick and Lisa Lucas more than compensate.

Beautiful, rich and she sings!

The Gift of Love (1978) was based on the famous O. Henry tale, The Gift of the Magi. Here, the young lovers are wealthy, orphaned Beth Atherton and the poor immigrant Rudy Miller (Marie Osmond and Timothy Bottoms). Set against the backdrop of turn-of-the-century New York, and with some pleasant tunes, it’s pretty much Titanic without the iceberg, the shipwreck, and with James Woods as the rejected fiancé (here, diffident and somewhat “nerdy” rather than belligerent and possessive), and with a happy ending. There have been a few renditions of this familiar classic; this one embellishes it to accommodate the feature length, but never encumbers it with mawkish sentimentality.

Best scene in the film

A Christmas Without Snow, was written for television, and suffers from many of the films of the 1970s-1980s; that is, the social issues – racial tolerance, feminism, single parents – are served up with all the subtlety of a punch list. When the story is allowed to evolve from it’s premise, it’s a rather appealing Christmas tale. Michael Learned stars as a newly divorced woman who moves to San Francisco and is recruited for a church choir. As the demanding choir director prepares the singers for a Christmas performance of The Messiah, the lives of the choir members begin to connect and overlap. As with many of the 80s TV movies, A Christmas Without Snow has a somewhat pat, off-the-template look, but some very good performances – Ruth Nelson, James Cromwell, Beah Richards and John Houseman – give it an advantage over the standard Christmas fare.

"Mary" Herdman

The Best Christmas Pageant Ever, based upon Barbara Robinson’s novel of the same name, first aired in 1983. Loretta Swit, coming straight from her long run on the popular TV series M*A*S*H stars as Grace Bradley, a small-town mother who is saddled with producing the annual church Christmas pageant when the perennial director quite literally breaks a leg. Young Beth Bradley is the wry narrator of Grace’s struggle to contend with the phoned-in advice of the bedridden director, and with he pandemonium caused by the six unruly Herdmans who descend upon the church (because they heard that refreshments were served) and demand the choice roles in the pageant. High marks for communicating the spirit of Christmas in an often hilarious tale.

And 3 Degrees of Austen?
1. Geraldine Page (A Christmas Memory) appeared in White Knights with Helen Mirren, who appeared in The Debt with Ciaran Hinds, Wentworth in the ’95 Persuasion.
Lisa Lucas (The House Without A Christmas Tree), appeared in An Unmarried Woman with Alan Bates; Bates appeared in Gosford Park with Tom Hollander, Mr. Collins in the 2005 Pride and Prejudice.
James Woods (The Gift of Love) appeared in The General’s Daughter with James Cromwell, who played Reverend Austen in Becoming Jane.
John Houseman (A Christmas Without Snow) appeared in Ghost Story with Alice Krige, who was Lady Russell in the 2007 Persuasion.
Fairuza Balk (The Best Christmas Pageant Ever) appeared in Valmont with Colin Firth, 1995’s Mr. Darcy.

And which Austen characters would have enjoyed these films? A Christmas Memory would have appealed to the elderly Bates ladies, perhaps remembering their times with Jane Fairfax when Jane was a child; Eleanor Tilney and Anne Elliot may have sympathized with Addie Mills’ cheerless home life; Marianne Dashwood would have been carried away by A Gift of Love; Mrs. Dashwood would have sympathized with the main character in A Christmas Without Snow, who has lost husband and home, and Fanny Price may have seen something of the Herdmans in The Best Christmas Pageant Ever when she returned to Portsmouth and her gaggle of unruly siblings.

We have come to the time of year when sometime soon, some channel will run its 24-hour A Christmas Story marathon, and when many viewers – including yours truly – will devote a couple hours of a busy pre-Christmas season to watch it., and to reflect on the fact (or, at least, on my conviction) that this low-budget, nostalgic take on the Christmas season, released nearly 30 years ago, is the last genuine Christmas classic. There has been no shortage of attempts – Prancer, The Santa Clause, Elf, Four Christmases, Deck the Halls, remakes of Miracle on 34th Sreet and A Christmas Carol –and no shortage of star power, funding or promotion. Still, it seems easier to catch lighting in a bottle than to ignite the spark of Christmas spirit on the screen.

Too often, modern Christmas films fail to call up that Christmas spirit – a phrase in which “spirit” is as important as “Christmas”. Either they are anchored to the comic persona of the star – Jim Carrey as the Grinch, Bill Murray as Scrooge, Tim Allen as Santa – or the holiday becomes the backdrop for some dispiriting plight – divorce, abandonment, homelessness. Certainly these are realities of the human condition, but the choice to make them the underpinning of holiday entertainment, does tend to sap some of the magic from a flying reindeer, a drafted St. Nick., or an adopted elf. As an aside, I often think about this when shopping under the cloud of piped-in cotemporary “Christmas” music. You may walk into a mall savoring the spirit, of the season but a few lines of “Please Daddy Don’t Get Drunk This Christmas” or “Last Christmas I Gave You My Heart” (“But the very next day, you gave it away”) is enough to, in the words of Elizabeth Bennet, “starve it entirely away”.

But I digress. A Christmas Story stands out among the slew of holiday films released in the last three decades because it manages to be whimsical but never affected, humorous but never vulgar, droll but never snarky. It is set in the 1940s, at a time when the expectations of Christmas were modest – Ralphie’s hope for a Red Ryder BB gun “with a compass in the stock and a thing that tells time” – a reasonable, comprehensible and affordable wish – becomes an extravagance only in his imagination, and “you’ll shoot your eye out kid” becomes the refrain in a sequence of pre-Christmas episodes that merge Ralphie’s (and narrator Jean Shepherd’s) reminiscences with our own – whether our own are real, wished-for or apocryphal. A Christmas Story manages to distill from its commonplace events – shopping for and haggling over the perfect tree, the visit to the department-store Santa, even the ability to make the most of Plan B when Christmas dinner is devoured by the neighborhood dogs – a recollection of what our own Christmases were, or should have been.

Which Austen characters would have made time in their schedules for an annual viewing of A Christmas Story? I think it would have been especially appealing to parents who valued the conventions of family life – the Morlands, the Gardiners, Miss Bates and her mother and possibly Mrs. Jennings and Charlotte Palmer, if Mr. Palmer and his inevitable critiques could be gotten rid of.

And three degrees of Jane Austen? Tedde Moore (Ralphie’s teacher) appeared in Murder By Decree, playing Mrs. Lees to Donald Sutherland’s Robert Lees; Sutherland was Mr. Bennet in the 2005 Pride and Prejudice.

Today is the official release date for Jane Austen Made Me Do It, 22 delightful stories inspired by the greatest writer of English prose. For background on the book, a sneak peak at the stories, a schedule of editor Laurel Ann Nattress’ blog tour, please visit: janeaustenmademedoit.com